[ESPAÑOL ABAJO]
February 2023
Dear Dr. Padalino and KCSD Board members,
We are parents at George Washington Elementary's Montessori program and citizens of Kingston who have experience with statistical analysis and information presentation beyond the average layperson on the street.
After reviewing the Feb 2023 report that recommended restructuring grades at GW, we became concerned about the way information and recommendations are presented in this report. We certainly would not want to be on the Board, having to make important decisions based on a report rife with data presentation issues and logical fallacies.
In fact, the BOE would be remiss to to form any assessments of GW or take any actions based on the insufficient case laid out in the Feb 2023 "Montessori Alignment GW Data Review" presentation.
The presentation lacks rigor and presents insufficient arguments to support the recommended actions.
Furthermore, GW is a Title I school. It does not appear that the data presented by Dr. Felicello fully aligns with the federal guidelines for scientific research regarding the review of education programs for Title 1 schools (See Section 9101(38) of the Every Student Succeeds Act).
However, the DTSDE does appear to be a research process which aligns with the federal guidelines for Title I schools. Additionally, "[t]he DTSDE process is the system and structure used for all KCSD schools, and the district, to receive feedback as part of our continuous improvement model." (Previous 01/18 GW DTSDE report).
LINK TO FEB 2023 REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ED BY DR. FELICELLO
https://www.kingstoncityschools.org/cms/lib/NY24000343/Centricity/Domain/856/Montessori%20Alignment%20BOE%20Workshop%202-9-23.pdf
SUMMARY
1. The burden of proof should be on the committee to present clear evidence of a need and a rationale behind their recommendations to move away from an important pillar of the Montessori approach.
2. This presentation lacks rigor in its:
- basic logic,
- organization/presentation/labeling of data,
- selection of supporting evidence,
- survey methodology,
- and possibly even its credibility as a balanced and impartial inquiry.
3. A recommendation to change the grade structure core to Montessori should follow only from demonstrating that Montessori is the problem.
4. It fails to show that consistent problems/negative trends even exist with GWE's current performance via any logically conclusive evidentiary demonstration.
5. It does not establish a cause for any "poor" individual stats presented nor rule out already known issues that have been repeatedly brought up by PTO.
6. The argument for the proposed changes hinges on teacher input that is not actually presented
Any alleged underperformance is unproven. Abundant grounds for reasonable doubt about the Montessori program's assumed culpability remain. This same presentation could just as easily be used to point fingers at the district's failure to follow through with the existing recommendations by its 2018 consultant review and report to get teachers properly trained and community educated about montessori. Let's not give the program an eventual death sentence based on very shaky evidence.
A DETAILED PAGE-BY-PAGE LOOK AT THE REPORT
Just on its face, this document does not appear to be an honest inquiry into the issues. It is very one sided at best, and only seems to present negative information without any exploration of positive trends, effects, or relies on anecdotal feedback, which casts suspicion on the whole inquiry.
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF A PEDAGOGICAL PROBLEM
The case and analysis have not been made for a supposed problem in the pedagogical approach that would provoke adjustment.
- Pgs 3-5 No evidence points to pedagogical method as a culprit for the recent registration dip. Covid-19 restrictions on tours, the departure of the founding principal, and the lack of follow through on marketing efforts recommended by 2018 consultants have not been ruled out as the cause of a recent dip in registration. Parents at the school see other possible causes in their recent experiences. One parent who wanted to transfer into GW for Montessori reports that getting into the school was a fight. Calls to the school referred them back to their zoning and were told, "You are not zoned here. Your zoned school is good too. There is no need to transfer. You can try to transfer if you want but you have to have a reason and the school is full already."
- Pgs 11-12 The ENL data is hard to decipher without more context.
- There is no indication of timeline to review how longitudinal performance tracks with Montessori implementation
- The graphs are not labeled clearly. Numbers of students in ENL listed on slides don't jive with previous comparative demographic slides.
- The #s of years to reach levels don't seem to consistently decrease from one sequential level to the next, as one would expect so the graph is confusing.
- In our main letter, we brought up the fact for many ENL students, many of the ENL students are not just Spanish speakers, but Q'eqchi’, (an indigenous Mayan language from Guatemala) is their actual first language.
ENL teachers at GW are servicing over 50 students per teacher since 2019 and that is NOT equitable across the district. Chambers has had pilot programs with small class sizes with an ENL teacher in there for ½ day, Edson has a 2 way bi-lingual program despite having way less ENL kids
GW kids did not have equal access to technology as other schools - many students didn’t get online more than 1 or 2 times the entire fall and into winter of 2020 -2021 - the impact of the pandemic on one of the most vulnerable populations in the district is real
- LONGITUDINAL DATA This longitudinal data is nowhere near as robust as the 2012 & Jan 2018 studies and does not seem to follow the recommended DTSDE protocols and lacks implementation of many of its instruments.
- Pgs 14-15 Again, this one graph comparison to Chambers is not sufficient to demonstrate a problem that could be otherwise accounted for with differing demographics, attendance, or other issues. The controls provided by a full DTSDE process ensure a more fair set of data for comparison.
- Pgs 16-17 The High School test score comparison, which seems to be the main information point used to argue that a change should be made, is provided without context.
- Pg 18 Is this a fair data set to include as is? Should Montessori be undercut because of the performance of students who attended GW before Montessori was fully implemented or for a very short time? Statistically, this should be controlled for these factors if it is to support the case against Montessori method.
- Pg 18 How were these 5 classes' scores selected to be representative out of a possible 15 classes within the range? These are several different score comparisons across different years and different classes.
- No overview of larger trends is provided that would help judge the meaning of these individual data points. If scores provided ARE part of a larger trend, this is NOT demonstrated .
Pg 20 TEACHER INPUT section is especially lacking rigor because: - The survey data has not been presented for review and citations are lacking
- The survey does not rule out the possibility that the teachers surveyed have not received Montessori training, which would point to a lack of training as "the problem"
- The verbiage "Curricular expectations for Grades 1-3 near impossible to meet with developmental span" suggests both the teachers and the survey conductors have a hard time even imagining how a multi-grade class could possibly meet curricular expectations with the span. Since the Montessori method does work and does meet curricula at hundreds of schools around the country, this articulation suggests that the teachers and surveyors are likely not trained properly in the fundamentals of Montessori, a known challenge for up to 50% of teachers at the school that the PTO has repeatedly asked the administration and district to remedy.
- "3-year-olds in program not working Potty training while teaching reading" is a gross mischaracterization of what is happening in these classrooms and indicates little fruitful effort to understand the situation well enough to make recommendations. This makes it sound like one teacher has to be in two places at once, a bathroom and the instructional position at the front of a traditional class. Firstly, there are generally three teachers in these classes, e.g. For one class of 21 students, two teachers and at least an assistant or aid. Two teachers can remain working with students if one aid needs to accompany another student to the restroom. Secondly, in a Montessori classroom, a teacher does not have to be instructing students at all times for learning to be happening. Children are meant to work independently and in partnership with other students facilitated by the carefully designed Montessori instructional materials without constant adult involvement. Thirdly, there is an hour every day reserved solely for Kindergarteners. All 3- and 4-year olds are dismissed at 2:00 so that Kindergarten students have time without younger kids until 3:05. Finally, the bathrooms for Children's House (3yo-K) are actually INSIDE the classroom. The 3yo-K age range is standard in the Montessori method and works at thousands of schools. Again, this comment suggests a lack of understanding of Montessori from teacher, up to administration, and to the reviewing committee. If further changes (beyond teacher trainings, etc.) are truly needed to this Children's House program, a consultant who understands Montessori should be involved in troubleshooting and making recommendations.
- No signs of balance- Surely at a minimum there are other points of view in the school. Regardless, such a big decision demands more rigorous analysis that the class structure is really the source of any problems or limitations for the program. Such analysis is NOT provided.
0Pg 23-26 RESEARCH & RECOMMENDATIONS section barely exists. - There is no discussion of research methods or the process of arriving at recommendations
- Have these recommendations regarding the structure of a Title 1 school's core Montessori curriculum come from someone who has sufficient background and training in Montessori curricula sufficient to troubleshoot and make recommendations, such as a Montessori consultant?
- As a Title 1 school, parent organizations have a say in major curriculum decisions and the PTO was not consulted, despite Dr. Felicello's claim that it was
- Certainly there are many possible recommendations to remedy any of the above issues, why is only one presented?
- Only one example of another school is presented
BALANCE & IMPARTIALITY
One final note. We are not alleging any ill will or malfeasance, but it stands to reason that a former principal could possibly encounter a conflict of interest in producing a report on how a school has fared under a new methodology and since her departure, especially when the report is allowed to step well outside of established analysis and reporting protocols. The optics are certainly not great. Offering multiple remedies and citing both sides of an argument are ways of showing balance and impartiality. The best practice, though, is obviously to hire outside consultants, as has been done in the past, in 2012 and 2017/2018 to handle data according to protocols and make recommendations. That helps ensure "the tail does not wag the dog" as might happen if some group wanting to take an action (eg. eliminating multi-grade classrooms) used selective information to support their decision.
CLEAR ARTICULATION OF ISSUES NEEDED FOR AN HONEST EXPLORATION OF POSSIBLE REMEDIES
Without a better defined analysis / diagnosis of the supposed problem, there cannot be a good faith exploration of recommendations. The alleged problem needs to be spelled out more clearly, and its sources traced with more balance before there is any consideration of drastic changes to the program.
We ask that:
1. The Board reject the report as a basis for making any changes at GW
2. Any further studies adhere to DTSDE protocols
3. A Montessori consultant be hired to support administration in making Montessori-informed changes
4. Recommendations from 2018 report be implemented immediately regarding teacher trainings and Montessori information campaign
5. Following Title 1 Guidelines, findings and recommendations get proper input from PTO before major changes to a Title 1 school's curriculum go before the BOE
6. The administration gives the PTO a full report on current Montessori training/credentials at the school with a list of all teachers and assistants and their current credentials.
7. The Board find a means of giving the Montessori program at GW a solid timeline of at least another 5 years with with proper support to recover from the pandemic and prove out its model-- without parents having to fight efforts to undercut training or dismantle the program every few years.
